Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (239217)	3/17/2002 11:06:53 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Serious? He's posted an inaccurate statement of the law?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (239217)	3/17/2002 11:33:07 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The point is that the Miller case affirms only the ability for states to field a militia, while disallowing shotguns as an inappropriate militia arm. In fact, the 2nd amendment has little to do with guaranteeing anything, other than states rights. It was meant to allow the states to have the power to raise a militia, NOT to guarantee individual gun ownership. Federalists at the time were very skiddish about placing any sort of restrictions on states rights, especially in the area of state militias. The intent of the amendment was to leave it up to states to decide how they would organize their 'well-regulated militia'. It was never intended to be a Constitutional guarantee of an individuals right to bare arms.